Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill — Clause 1 — Up-rating of State Pension and Certain other Benefits Following Review in Tax Year 2021-22 — 15 Nov 2021 at 18:30

The majority of MPs voted for potential additional increases in state pensions and related benefits to be determined in relation to the general level of prices, rather than in relation to the level of earnings as adjusted to take account of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

MPs were considering the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill.[1][2][3]

The Bill[2][3] provides for the basic State Pension, the full rate of the new State Pension, the Standard Minimum Guarantee in Pension Credit and survivors’ benefits in Industrial Death Benefit to be increased by the general level of prices and at least by 2.5% for the 2022-23 tax year.

The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Lords amendment 1[4] stated:

  • Page 1, line 7, leave out from the first “of” to end of line 8 and insert
  • “earnings obtaining in Great Britain, as adjusted to take account of the exceptional impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the level of earnings.”

Had it not been rejected this amendment would have impacted subclause 1(1) of the Bill which originally stated[2]:

  • In relation to the tax year ending with 5 April 2022, the amounts referred to in subsection (1) of section 150A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (annual up-rating of basic pension etc and standard minimum guarantee) are to be reviewed as if that subsection required a review by reference to the general level of prices obtaining in Great Britain (instead of the general level of earnings obtaining in Great Britain).

The rejected amendment would have required the review to be:

  • by reference to the general level of earnings obtaining in Great Britain, as adjusted to take account of the exceptional impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the level of earnings.

An explanatory note on the amendment stated[5]:

  • Lords amendments 1 and 2 intend to maintain the link between pension up rating and earnings growth, but the earnings growth figure is to be adjusted to take account of the exceptional effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Average Weekly Earnings (AWE) index.
  • ...
  • Amendment 1 makes changes to subsection (1) of Clause 1 and provides for a review of the basic State Pension, the full rate of the new State Pension, the Standard Minimum Guarantee in Pension Credit and survivors’ benefits in Industrial Death Benefit by reference to earnings growth (adjusted for the exceptional effects of the Covid-19 pandemic). A

The Bill's key operative provision amended Section 150A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992[6]. Prior to the Bill subsection two of that provision stated:

  • (2)Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the general level of earnings is greater at the end of the period under review than it was at the beginning of that period, he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an order which increases each of the amounts referred to in subsection (1) above by a percentage not less than the percentage by which the general level of earnings is greater at the end of the period than it was at the beginning.

The Deputy National Statistician for Economic Statistics estimated that the underlying earnings growth in the year to July 2021 was between 3.2% and 4.4%[7]. The consumer prices index was up 2.9% in the 12 months to September 2021[8] (the latest data available from the ONS at the time of the vote), and up 2.1% in the 12 months to July 2021[9].

At the time of the vote it appeared reasonable to expect an adjusted earnings basis would have led to higher pensions and related benefits, however prices were up by 4.6% in the 12 months to November 2021[10] and by February 2021 (the last data available before the new tax year) prices were up 4.9% over the previous year[11].

It is not clear if an adjusted earnings measure, or prices, would have led to higher pensions and related benefits, or if there would have been a significant difference. The criteria for making the Covid-19 adjustment, and the timing of the review and decisions would have impacted the outcome.

--

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Alba0 1050.0%
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con296 (+2 tell) 1183.1%
DUP0 3037.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent1 3080.0%
Lab0 169 (+2 tell)085.9%
LDem0 11091.7%
PC0 2066.7%
SDLP0 1050.0%
SNP0 33073.3%
Total:297 226182.6%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Esther McVeyTattonCon (front bench)no
Derek ThomasSt IvesCon (front bench)both

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive